Friday, March 18, 2016

Civil Beat's Errors and Conflict of Interest

A Civil Beat editorial calling for
heightened agricultural pesticide controls is based on faulty
assumptions and made without disclosing its own conflict of interest
on this topic.

First, the conflict: Civil Beat
founder, funder and editorial board member Pierre Omidyar has donated
money to the pesticide advocacy group Center for Food Safety.

What a "coincidence" that its editorial coincides with today's press conference at the Capitol, where several groups — including CFS and Gary Hooser's HAPA — will demand that Gov. Ige adopt the very same controls that Civil Beat endorses.

When I brought this conflict to the
attention of Civil Beat Editor Patti Epler last week, she initially denied it:

Your comment was a surprise to me and
so I double-checked and am told by both Ashley [Lukens, director of
CFS] and the Omidyar people that they in fact give no money -- and
never have -- to this organization.

When I provided documentation — a PDF showing that CFS received a FLEX grant from Hawaii Community
Foundation and a link showing that Omidyar funds the FLEX grant —
Patti dismissed it:

As you well know, the FLEX grant is
funded by 20 different HCF funds, the Omidyar Ohana fund being one of
them. There are hundreds of recipients, many of which we write about
frequently. It's HCF, not Omidyar, that control [sic] who gets that
mnoney [sic] (I wrote about this in my piece on the Omidyars in
Hawaii, linked above). So I could put a disclaimer on every story
that says "The Omidyars give millions of dollars in grants and
one of the hundreds of recipients may be mentioned in this story."
So it is truly disingenous [sic] of you to assert that CFS is funded
by the Omidyar family.

Patti absolves from Omidyar from
responsibility by claiming that HCF decides where the money goes, not
Omidyar, and asserts we should take it on faith that it's not a
"donor-advised" grant. Nonetheless, Omidyar money is going
to CFS — the most outspoken group on pesticides in Hawaii and a
frequent source for Civil Beat articles (including one press release reprint).

Under Patti's reasoning, if money is
laundered through a foundation, the donor need not disclose any
conflicts and can disavow any connection to the recipients.
Ironically, the very same day that Patti issued her disavowal, Civil
Beat published an article that criticized the billionaire Koch
Brothers for doing exactly that. It's also a reviled tactic of the
oil and coal industries. But it's apparently OK when it's her boss.

Despite its supposed commitment to
“investigative journalism,” and its much ballyhooed support for
transparency and disclosure, Civil Beat has shown a decided
disinterest in exploring the lack of transparency among Hawaii
nonprofits, many of which — including Center for Food Safety —
are engaging in direct political advocacy under the guise of
education. In other words, they're actively working to influence the
political process without revealing their funding sources.

Perhaps Civil Beat could start with the
dismal lack of transparency by Hawaii Community Foundation, a
tax-exempt charity that is the source of most nonprofit funding in
the Islands and a recipient of Omidyar money. Years ago,
donor-advised grant-making was identified on HCF tax returns. As their 1998 tax return shows, various donors and their donor-advised grants
are clearly identified, beginning on page 14. And as recently as
2013, HCF's tax return furnished a roster of all grants it had
awarded.

But HCF's 2014 990 return — scanned
by Guidestar in December 2015 — discloses neither donor-advised
grants nor a list of organizations that received grants totaling some
$30 million. Instead, HCF supplied the following statement:

Hawaii Community Foundation through its
grantmaking and program services has assisted 830 organizations ad
others... Grant making occurs in eighteen different program areas as
described on the attached statement. See Statement #2.

However, no statement is shown on the
990 form posted by Guidestar, leaving the public in the dark
as to the recipients of HCF grant-making. Doesn't the public deserve
greater transparency from a Foundation that plays such an influential
role in the Islands? Especially when one of its funders has also
started a “news site” that directly seeks to influence policy.

Which brings me back to today's
editorial supporting all the recommendations of the Joint Fact
Finding Group, convened to review agricultural pesticide on Kauai.
The Civil Beat editorial reiterates this oft-repeated lie:

But from the beginning, the report was
destined to add fuel to the fire, due to a huge, fundamental problem:
Pesticide use data isn’t being collected.

Without knowing how much, how often and
what kinds of pesticides are being applied, it’s hard for anyone to
draw credible scientific conclusions regarding health and
environmental impacts.

Take a look at the Kauai Agricultural Good Neighbor Program website. It clearly shows how much, how often
and what kinds of restricted use pesticides are being applied to each
company's fields. For example, in January 2016, Pioneer Du-Pont
applied three different pesticides, which are identified both by
product name and active ingredient. The report also shows the total
amount used of both the product and its active ingredient, as well as
the total area where the pesticide was applied.

Civil Beat also failed to note that the
seed companies engage in pre-spraying disclosure to all nearby
residents who have requested such notification, as well as to schools
and hospitals. So those most likely to be affected do indeed enjoy a very high level of disclosure.

Civil Beat then dinged Hawaii
Agriculture Director Scott Enright for saying he would be likely to
impose buffer zones, based on what CB considers “confounding
reasoning:” The report found no statistically significant evidence
that pesticide use by Big Ag is harming Kauai’s environment or
public health.

What Civil Beat again failed to report
is that Scott said he would support “increasing monitoring of
surface water and beehives," both of which would provide
valuable information about whether pesticides are migrating off-site.
The surface water testing also responds to the one and only area
where the state's own water sampling — and not the JFFG's, as
incorrectly reported by Civil Beat — "exceeded EPA
environmental benchmarks."

Civil Beat concludes by saying:

Community fears, concerns and discord
won’t be solved taking an approach to pesticide data that more
resemble Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s On First?”
routine than a proper scientific discussion.

Civil Beat might want to look at the
role it plays in fanning community fears and discord with its
inaccurate and inflammatory reporting on this complex issue.

I have
no problem with starting “a proper scientific discussion” on this
topic. But for some reason, neither Civil Beat nor the activists want to start with that.

17 comments:

John McHugh
said...

Thank you Joan for another well researched, written, and documented essay on the realities of pesticide use in agriculture in Hawaii. I realize that it is difficult to change the mind of those whose mind is closed on the matter but if, at the very least, your words are read by those that govern then there is at least a fighting chance that additional regulatory burden will not be heaped on an industry that is already heavily burdened. As farmers we understand the need to ensure that the consuming public and workers on the farm are safe from risks associated with pesticide application. If we could only flip a switch to a time when there were no invasive pests to attack our crops, our homes, and our health then we might never have to use pesticides. But, since that is not the case, pesticides are a tool which help us grow the food that feed our people, control the pests that destroy our homes, and stave off the insects that transmit disease. When they are handled properly and responsibly they are at the bottom of a long list of real concerns that threaten and undermine the stability of our communities.

I'm not saying this guy is right. I'm just offering it as something to think about.

FWIW: Joan, your comment on the Civil Beat article was deleted. I didn't agree with everything you were suggesting but I don't think it should have been removed.

WRT the Abbot and Costello reference, I felt that was right on. The "blues" (Costello?) aren't understanding the "reds" (Abbot?) and confusion reigns. It was the best metaphor I've ever heard -- that is if one has ever listened to that skit. It is hilarious.

The JFFG report states over and over and over again, that the holes in the Good Neighbor Program make it nearly impossible to determine what pesticide is actually being applied and where. Perhaps "someone" will correct that before the final report is published?

The report shows in Table 3 that anywhere from 0.87 (Atrazine) to 5.3 (Chlorpyrifos) times as much pesticide is applied when compared to the mainland applications. It isn't clear that this actually has meaning.

The report is going to be criticized for not being scientific, but it states over and over and over again, that obtaining the required information is impossible because there are no GIS coordinates assigned to the fields and because the data the GNP provides is not good enough. (I probably repeat myself here. Oh Well.)

While dinging Scott Enright, you fail to mention he said he would support "increasing monitoring of surface water and beehives," both of which would provide valuable information about whether pesticides are migrating off-site. The surface water testing also responds to the one and only area where samples "exceeded EPA environmental benchmarks." You also say, "Pesticide use data isn’t being collected. Without knowing how much, how often and what kinds of pesticides are being applied..." Have you ever looked at the Good Neighbor data? It clearly reports how much, how often and what kinds of restricted use pesticides are being applied.

I will again point out the conflict of interest inherent in Pierre Omidyar serving on your editorial board when his philanthropy is supporting the pestcide advocacy group Center for Food Safety via the Hawaii Community Foundation. As for my own disclosure, I have no financial ties to any pesticide or agribusiness interests.

Wow, Joan. Your comment is altogether temperate. I guess mere mention of the sainted Omidyar and his varied interests gets you blacklisted. Or perhaps Civil Beat can stir the pot but can't stand the heat.

Joan's comment may have been temperate, and I certainly do not think it should have been taken down, I feel a strong need to rebut her support of the Good Neighbor Program. The GNP is "better than nothing" but the joint Fact Finding report says over and over and over again, that the information provided in the GNP is hardly enough to be able to develop a systematic examination of the use of RUPs on Kauai.

There are rumors, and I confess and/or acknowledge they are rumors, of increased birth defects on the West Side. I have a good friend who believes (s)he was directly affected by pesticides on the West Side and has spent the last several months recovering from those effects.

I'm not going to tell you that these events are because of the seed companies. But I will tell you that we don't know what caused them. And because we don't know, I'm in favor of finding out.

I recall the "hoopla" around living under high-voltage power lines. (around 1985) When a comprehensive study was done, it showed that the correlation that everyone though existed was not based on fact. We have the same problem on the West Side. All it takes is one or two babies to be born with defects that seem to be attributed to the chemicals and we have a problem.

Now, many of you are going to point to studies that have shown these chemicals to be safe. And I'm willing to believe that under the controlled conditions of the studies they were. But I need to remind you that the JFF report states that there are no studies on the concurrent use of these chemicals.

My wanting to find out is not limited to GMO operations on the West Side.

John Kauai said "My wanting to find out is not limited to GMO operations on the West Side." I want to find out too, and my BELIEF and hypothesis is that the problems stem from "mass hysteria" (medical definition) among a subset of the population on Kauai fanned by duplicitous pols and dubious non profits. Now my hypothesis is just as valid as anything the JFFG has suggested, and JK has provided the powerline example of this. Think "smart meters." We should look at all aspects of this- and maybe scientific illiteracy, too. I don't want no damn DNA in my food- 80%. Oh, you might want to add obesity, tobacco, drugs, alcohol, inactivity, minimal healthcare,vaccinations for the anti vaxxers, and lots of other things to the study. And I am affected by the notion that we all will have to pay for a share of this bullshit sooner or later. Add that, too.

9:41, the answer may be D, all of the above. One the one hand, he makes a splashy gift of $50 million to the Hawaii Community Foundation. On the other, his editor at Civil Beat whines that her boss gives away so many millions, she can't be expected to keep track of it all. Sort of like the guy feeding an ammo belt to a machine gunner, proclaiming innocence when one of those bullets actually hits somebody. Is he a bad guy? No, I'm sure he's charming and well-intended. But $8 billion in net worth can buy a lot of ill-considered neoliberal adventures. Here's a deep background syllabus.

John used to be California. You want to see birth defects! Oahu is FILLED with handicap population.

John K---i! Earn your title. The silent majority said from the start. Show the facts first before the bill. Now the JFFG wants to start the process, which is great. The JFFG also said no evidence to the claim. You're talking some great stuff, but! The facts still remain. The silent majority still waiting for data to back up the original 2491 claims. We back to square 1, getting the data. You also forget, this island got divided and it still is. You making your claims, the silent majority just watching.

Yes, we are back to square one. We knew we were at square one when 960 was overturned.

This is like me showing you a box and telling you that there is no scorpion in the box. How do you know until you look? If I insist there isn't and that you should put your hand inside and just "trust me", would you? What if you had several friends who told you that they put their hand into the box and got bit?

I'm not forgetting that the island is still divided. Overturning 960 didn't suddenly "bring us together".

If the "silent majority" wants to know then they need to stop being silent. If they don't care, then why bother those of us that do?

However, I may have missed your point.

FWIW: I also used to live in Minnesota, Colorado (twice), Texas, Florida (3 times) and New Mexico (twice) and this is my second time around in Hawaii. Hawaii is in "second place" for the "state I've lived in the longest" but it coming up fast to be number one. The only time I was forlorn leaving a state was the first time I left Hawaii. All the other "migrations" were off to bigger and better things which allowed me to come back.